Condoleeza Rice has broken with over 200 years of tradition and has hit the campaign trail. The Secretary of State is, in normal times, a non-partisan position, and the Secretary of State traditionally keeps a low profile durign election season. "The tradition for secretaries of state has been to stay out of partisan politics and to stay above the fray," said Karl F. Inderfurth, director of the international affairs graduate program at George Washington University and assistant secretary of state under Albright. "They take office as the secretary of state of the United States of America, not of the Republican or Democratic party." Madeline Albreit joked that when she became secretary, she had her partisan instincts surgically removed.Not Condi.
Starting on 24 October, Condi started on a media blitz to rally the faithful. It has gone largely unnoticed as the campaign heats up, and she limits herself mostly to appearances on talk radio.
But make no mistake, these appearances on friendly soil are most definitely campaign related, no matter what her spokesperson says, nor that the interviews stay pretty close to issues of foreign policy. She is parroting the party line on the airwaves, and the Republicans are getting a lot of free exposure among their base, courtesy of Laura Ingraham, Bill Bennett and Lawrence Kudlow.
Kudlow asked her if Democratic control would "disrupt, interfere and stop the processes you're describing" for leaving Iraq.
Condi responded "The key to me is that this president has a program for the war on terror and it's a program that is going to win, and he needs the support of everyone for that program, I frankly haven't heard an alternative posed for how we fight the war on terror except on the offense."
Of course, these are not normal times we live in and Condi is not a normal Secretary of State. When she was National Security Advisor in 2004 she hit the campaign trail, too. Those interviews and campaign stops drew a lot of criticism then, which may be why she is sticking so close to the base this time out.
I have tracked down a couple of audio clips from these interviews, and it's partisan hackery. She talks a lot about a Bush plan, but never elaborates. I'm sorry, but you'll have to do better, because none of the plans this administration has employed thus far have worked. In fact, they have mostly backfired. Spectacularly. So when she assures me that the president has some double-secret plan to win the war on terror, I'm skeptical. Especially when she immediately ducks under the nearest petticoat and says 'besides, the Democratic Party has not offered any plans, either.'
First, it is not our responsibility to clean this mess up. yet.
Second, you don't win a war on terror with military might. Terror is a tactic employed by an enemy; it is not the enemy. I honestly am starting to believe that these people are incapable of making that distinction. I hear a lot of hollow rhetoric, but I hear nothing concrete.
I know they are desperate, and getting more so as 07 November bears down on them, but the talking points ring hollow as the bodies pile up and the scandals mount.
It is time for a Democratic congress with subpoena powers to demand real answers, and get them.
